EN BANC

[G.R. No. 133926. August 6, 2003.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs . RUBEN DALISAY Y

HERNANDEZ , appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Cipriano U. Asilo for accused-appellant.
SYNOPSIS
Appellant was found guilty by the trial court of the crime of statutory rape for
sexually abusing his eleven-year old daughter. Hew as sentenced to suffer the supreme
penalty of death. Hence, this automatic review of the case.
The Supreme Court ruled that in a prosecution for rape, the victim's credibility
becomes the single most important issue, and when her testimony satis es the test of
credibility, an accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. In the case at bar, the
victim's testimony has su ciently and convincingly proved that appellant had carnal
knowledge of her. Her candid and straightforward testimony, punctuated by her tears
when she narrated how she was sexually ravished by her very own father, were earmarks of
a truthful witness and thus, must be given full faith and credit.
The Court likewise ruled that the presence of either hymenal laceration or
spermatozoa on the victim's private part is not an essential element of rape. Moreover, full
penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, as proof of entrance
showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the
female organ is sufficient.
However, in view of the failure of the prosecution to prove the victim's age as
alleged in the information, the Court convicted appellant only of simple rape and sentenced
him to reclusion perpetua, considering that he had carnal knowledge of the victim through
force and intimidation.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; STATUTORY RAPE; ELEMENTS. — [T]he essential elements of

statutory rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the woman
is below 12 years of age.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; TESTIMONY OF
RAPE VICTIM, IF CREDIBLE, MAY BE THE BASIS OF CONVICTION OF ACCUSED; CASE AT
BAR. — In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most
important issue, and when her testimony satis es the test of credibility, an accused may
be convicted solely on the basis thereof. Indeed, Lanie's testimony has su ciently and
convincingly proved that appellant had carnal knowledge of her on the night in question.
Her candid and straightforward testimony, punctuated by her tears when she narrated how
she was sexually ravished by her very own father, are earmarks of a truthful witness and
thus, must be given full faith and credit.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RAPE VICTIM'S TESTIMONY IS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT
ESPECIALLY WHEN SHE ACCUSES HER OWN FATHER OR A CLOSE RELATIVE OF HAVING
RAPED HER. — [A] rape victim's testimony is entitled to great weight especially when she
accuses her own father or a close relative of having ravished her. For there can be ascribed
no greater motivation for a woman abused by her own kin than that innate yearning of the
human spirit to declare the truth to obtain justice.SCHATc

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN A VICTIM SAYS SHE WAS RAPED, SHE SAYS IN EFFECT ALL
THAT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED. — Rape is not an
ordinary crime that can easily be manufactured. When a victim says she was raped, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime was committed. Not a few
offenders in rape cases attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds,
resentment or revenge, but such alleged motives cannot prevail over the positive and
credible testimonies of complainants who remained steadfast throughout the trial.
5. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; NOT NEGATED BY ABSENCE OF HYMENAL
LACERATION OR SPERMATOZOA ON VICTIM'S PRIVATE PART. — The presence of either
hymenal laceration or spermatozoa on Lanie's private part is not an essential element of
rape. In People vs. Parcia, we held that the absence of sperm does not disprove the charge
of rape. Likewise, in People vs. Regala, we ruled that an intact hymen does not necessarily
prove absence of sexual intercourse. Similarly, in People vs. Rafales, we declared: ". . . For
rape to be committed, entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the
female organ is su cient. Rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina are not
essential. Entry to the least extent of the labia or the lips of the female organ is su cient,
the victim remaining virgin does not negate rape."
6. ID.; ID.; FULL PENETRATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSUMMATE CARNAL
KNOWLEDGE. — [F]ull penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, as
proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum of the female organ is sufficient.
7. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN DETERMINING THE
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM'S AGE AS ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE
OR AS QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE. — In People vs. Pruna, we speci ed the guidelines in
determining the sufficiency of evidence of the victim's age as an element of the crime or as
a qualifying circumstance, thus: "1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended
party is an original or certi ed true copy of the certi cate of live birth of such party. "2. In
the absence of a certi cate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would su ce to
prove age. "3. If the certi cate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been
lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the
victim's mother or a member of the family either by a nity or consanguinity who is
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of
the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be
su cient under the following circumstances: a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years
of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; b. If the victim
is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 12 years old; c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought
to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. "4. In the absence of a certi cate of live
birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning
the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will su ce provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused "5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence
regarding age shall not be taken against him. "6. The trial court should always make a
categorical finding as to age of the victim."
8. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; CIVIL INDEMNITY; AWARD IS MANDATORY UPON
FINDING OF THE FACT OF RAPE. — [U]pon a nding of the fact of rape, the award of civil
indemnity is mandatory. If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex delicto should be
P75,000.00. Where, as here, the death penalty is not decreed, the victim should be entitled
to P50,000.00 only.
9. ID.; ID.; MORAL DAMAGES AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; AWARDED IN CASE
AT BAR. — In line with current jurisprudence, moral damages is xed at P50,000.00 without
need of pleading or proof of basis therefor. In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00
is awarded to deter fathers with aberrant sexual behavior.

DECISION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ , J : p

For automatic review is the Decision 1 dated May 5, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 4, Pallocan, Batangas City, in Criminal Case No. 8776 convicting Ruben Dalisay y
Hernandez, appellant, of statutory rape, and imposing upon him the supreme penalty of
death. He was further ordered to indemnify the victim, Ma. Lanie Dalisay (Lanie for brevity),
his own daughter, the sum of P200,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages and to pay
the costs.
On February 10, 1997, a criminal complaint was led with the said court by Lanie
against appellant, her own father, alleging as follows:
"That on or about the 26th day of September 1996, at Barangay Pulong
Anahao, Municipality of Mabini, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay and
have carnal knowledge with the said Ma. Lanie Dalisay, daughter of the accused
and below twelve (12) years old, against her will and consent.

"Contrary to law." 2

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial ensued
thereafter. aEHASI

Lanie's testimony is as follows: On September 26, 1996, she was 11 years old,
having been born on September 26, 1985. 3 Her mother, Celestina Dalisay, has been
working abroad, leaving her and her two siblings, Luz and Ruben, under appellant's care.
They reside in Barangay Pulong Anahao, Mabini, Batangas.
In the evening of September 26, 1996, appellant arrived home from work. 4 Lanie
was then lying on bed when suddenly he removed her pants and underwear. She resisted
but he boxed her on her thigh. 5 So when he told her to hold his penis, she fearfully obliged.
Then he touched her vagina and licked it. Thereafter, while in a kneeling position, he placed
his penis at the entrance of Lanie's vagina and inserted his private organ into hers. He then
proceeded to make push and pull movements (nakanyog ). 6 Lanie felt pain, but she did not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 complain because she was afraid of him. 7 When she held appellant's penis and tried to
remove it, something sticky came out. Appellant then wiped his penis and Lanie's vagina
with a blanket. After that, he again licked her vagina, wiped it and went to sleep. 8
Lanie further testi ed that appellant has sexually abused her since she was in grade
III, or in 1994. She estimated that he had raped her seventeen (17) times, although she
could no longer remember the exact dates when they took place. 9 She did not tell anyone
about those previous incidents because she was afraid he would harm her, as he used to
do in the past. 1 0
The following day, September 27, Lanie went to school and pretended as if nothing
happened. However, her Grade V teacher, Luminada Sangcate, noticed that Lanie looked
depressed that day. When she inquired, Lanie answered that she was raped (hinalay) by her
father. 1 1 Immediately, Luminada reported the matter to the school principal who, in turn,
relayed the same to their Barangay Chairman. On September 30, 1996, a meeting was held
among the Barangay Chairman, the school principal, and appellant's brother, Feliciano
Dalisay, who all conferred with Lanie 1 2 and decided to bring her to the Mabini Police
Station where she executed an affidavit on the incident. 1 3
Incidentally, Lanie's sister, Luz, also led a complaint for acts of lasciviousness
against appellant. Both sisters were brought to the Lingap Center of Mabini for temporary
custody pending the resolution of their cases. 1 4
Lucila Bacay, a Social Worker at Mabini, testi ed that on October 4, 1996, she
interviewed the appellant and he admitted that he raped Lanie. He explained though that he
could not understand why he did it to his own daughter. 1 5
For his part, appellant denied the charge, claiming that his wife's relatives instigated
Lanie to le the complaint against him because they wanted to take from him the custody
of his children which he resented. 1 6
Dr. Emma Panaligan, Medico-Legal O cer of the Batangas Regional Hospital,
testi ed that on September 30, 1996, she examined Lanie after the latter complained that
she was raped by the appellant. She confirmed her Medico-Legal Certificate dated October
2, 1996, 1 7 stating that Lanie's "external genitalia" is "infantile" and has a "non-gaping labia
majora;" that her "hymen is intact," and "no sperm cell was seen" during the examination. 1 8
She explained that the normal size of the penis of an adult person could not fully penetrate
Lanie's vagina "considering the small size and the condition of her external genitalia." 1 9
On May 5, 1998, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision convicting appellant
of statutory rape, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"Premises considered and upon the evidence, accused Ruben Dalisay y
Hernandez is found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape as charged
in the criminal complaint led by her minor daughter Ma. Lanie Dalisay and
de ned and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 7659. Wherefore, he is sentenced to suffer the capital
punishment of Death to be made and exacted in the manner provided for under
existing law which is by lethal injection. He is further directed to indemnify
complainant Ma. Lanie Dalisay with the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) as moral and exemplary damages and to pay the costs. cSCTEH

"SO ORDERED." 2 0

Hence, this automatic review.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 In his brief, appellant claims that the trial court erred:
"I
. . . in giving full weight and credence to private complainant's testimony,
which is insu cient to establish the commission of the offense by the appellant;
and

"II
. . . in failing to appreciate in appellant's favor the testimony of Dr. Emma
Panaligan who physically examined the private complainant."

The trial court convicted appellant of statutory rape because he had carnal
knowledge of Lanie who was "below 12 years of age" when the crime was committed.
The law governing the instant case is Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659, 2 1 which partly provides:
"Article 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by
having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

"The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

xxx xxx xxx"

Based on the above-quoted provisions, the essential elements of statutory rape are:
(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the woman is below 12 years
of age. 2 2
The trial court found Lanie's testimony credible and trustworthy, thus:
". . . su ce it to state that the demeanor of the complainant, Ma. Lanie
Dalisay, as she gave her testimony has led this court to give her utmost credibility.
She was barely eleven years of age and the manner by which she courageously
gave evidence to what her father had done to her showed no taint whatsoever
that she was not telling the truth. Her tears which owed from her eyes as she
narrated the 'gift' from hell which her father gave her on the very night of her
birthday accentuated the truth of her unfortunate and devilish ordeal . . .." 2 3

In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most
important issue, and when her testimony satis es the test of credibility, an accused may
be convicted solely on the basis thereof. 2 4
Indeed, Lanie's testimony has su ciently and convincingly proved that appellant had
carnal knowledge of her on the night, in question. Her candid and straightforward
testimony, punctuated by her tears when she narrated how she was sexually ravished by
her very own father, are earmarks of a truthful witness and thus, must be given full faith
and credit. 2 5 Lanie described how appellant raped her, thus: IaDTES

"Q: Now, on September 26, 1996 in the evening while you were in bed, do you
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 remember if there was anything done to you by your father?

A: He inserted his organ to my organ, sir.

Q: And, that was inside your house?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And, where is your house located at that time?

A: At Barangay Pulong Anahao, Mabini, Batangas, sir.

Q: Now, before your father was inserting his private organ to you, were you
wearing any underwear?
A: None, sir.
Q: Why?
A: Because he removed it first, sir.
Q: How about your pants, did you wear your pants at that time?

A: Yes sir, but it was also removed by my father.

Q: Now, was the place where you were undressed by your father lighted?
A: It was dark, sir.
Q: And, how did you know that the private organ of your father was being
inserted in you?
A: Because my father asked me to hold his organ, sir.
Q: Did you hold his organ when he told you that?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: And, after it was held by you, what did he do next?
A: He touched also my organ, sir.
Q: And, what else did he do, if any?

A: After touching my private organ he licked it (nilawayan at hinimud ).

PROS. JUDIT:
May we request that the Tagalog answer of the witness be incorporated to
the record.
Q: After doing that (nilawayan at hinimud), what else did he do?
A: He inserted his organ into my organ, sir.
Q: Was his private part able to penetrate yours?
A: In the entrance, sir.
Q: And what did you feel when his private organ was inserted to you?
A: It was painful, sir.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q: Did you complain to your father?

A: I cannot complain, sir.

Q: Why?
A: Because I'm afraid (natatakot po ako), sir.
PROS. JUDIT:
May we request to put on record that when the witness answered 'natatakot
po ako,' she was teary eyed, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: And was this the first time that your father inserted his penis to you on
September 26, 1996, or was there any other incident?

A: There were other times, sir.

Q: And previous to this incident, how many times if you can recall?
A: What I estimated was seventeen (17) times, sir.
Q: And, since when did he first do this to you?
A: When I was still in grade 3, sir.

COURT:
Do you mean to say when you were still in grade 3 your father had already
inserted his penis to your organ?
A: Yes, Your Honor." 2 6 (Emphasis ours)

Upon cross-examination, Lanie remained steadfast in her story that appellant

sexually ravished her against her will on the night in question.
"On Cross-examination:
ATTY. ASILO:
Q: Was there somebody else who told you to file this instant case against
your father?
A: None, sir.

COURT:
You are saying that the filing of this case against your father was of your
own initiative?

A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. ASILO:
Q: You were lying down while your father was inserting his private organ to
your private organ?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what was the relative position of your father when he was inserting
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 his private organ to your private organ?
A: He was kneeling down, sir.
COURT:
Did he say anything to you before he inserted his penis to your organ?
A: None, sir.
ATTY. ASILO:
Q: But before he inserted his penis to your private organ, you stated that your
father told you to undress yourself?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was it your father who undressed you or you undressed yourself when told
by your father?
A: It was my father who was trying to remove my pants and panty and I tried
to pull them up and resisted.
Q: But despite your resistance your father was able to remove your pants and
panty?
A: Yes, sir. My father was able to remove my pants and panty because he
boxed me on my thigh.
Q: And, is it correct that your father told you to hold his private organ before
he inserted the same to your private organ?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And did you obey your father?
A: Yes, sir. I followed him because if not he will again box me on my thigh.
Q: But you stated that your father had inserted his penis slightly to your
private organ?
A: The tip of his private organ was inserted in my private organ, sir.
Q: And, your father was moving while the tip of his organ was inside your
private organ, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And could you describe before this Honorable Court the movement of your
father while the tip of his organ was penetrating your private organ?
A: Siya po ay nakanyog, sir.
Q: For how long did your father remain in that movement?
A: Quite long, sir.
Q: And, when your father was inserting his private organ to your organ you
were still holding his penis, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir. I was holding his penis because I was trying to pull it out.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q: And, was there something which came out from the penis of your father
while the same was inserted in your private organ?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And could you tell to this Honorable Court what was that something which
came out from your father's private organ.
A: It was something sticky, sir.
Q: Did it come out while his private organ was being inserted or while the
same was outside your private organ?
A: When that sticky thing came out, his private organ was outside mine and
then he removed it, sir.
COURT:

After that, what happened?

A: He stopped, sir. 2 7
xxx xxx xxx
On Re-cross examination:
Q: And you still maintain your answer that nobody among your relatives from
the mother side asked you or initiated you to file this case against your
father because of personal grudge against him?
A: No, sir. It was my own decision that this case was filed against my father.
2 8 (Emphasis ours)

Lanie was fully aware that if her father would be convicted of the crime charged, he
would be sentenced to death. Yet, she remained rm in her testimony and wanted him to
be penalized with death, thus:
"COURT:
Do you know the gravity of the offense charged to your father?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know that if your father is found guilty he might be sentenced to
death?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Do you want your father to die?

A: Yes, sir. 2 9

Certainly, such statements could only be expressed by an aggrieved daughter who

values the sanctity of her womanhood more than the life of his father. We have held that a
rape victim's testimony is entitled to great weight especially when she accuses her own
father or a close relative of having ravished her. 3 0 For there can be ascribed no greater
motivation for a woman abused by her own kin than that innate yearning of the human
spirit to declare the truth to obtain justice. 3 1
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Appellant would like us to believe that Lanie's charge against him was instigated by
his parents-in-law who want to have the custody of his children.
We are not swayed by appellant's bare claim. We nd no reason to disturb the lower
court's nding that Lanie's story is credible. It is inconceivable that she would falsely
testify against her own father if the charge were not true. Rape is not an ordinary crime that
can easily be manufactured. 3 2 When a victim says she was raped, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that the crime was committed. Not a few offenders in rape
cases attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment or revenge,
but such alleged motives cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of
complainants who remained steadfast throughout the trial. 3 3
Moreover, appellant contends that since Lanie's hymen is intact and that there was
no spermatozoa in her genitalia 3 4 when Dr. Emma Panaligan examined her on September
30, 1997, he could not have committed the crime.
We disagree. It was su ciently and convincingly established by the prosecution that
appellant had carnal knowledge of Lanie against her will, as clearly shown by her testimony
quoted earlier. The presence of either hymenal laceration or spermatozoa on Lanie's
private part is not an essential element of rape. 3 5 In People vs. Parcia, 3 6 we held that the
absence of sperm does not disprove the charge of rape. Likewise, in People vs. Regala, 3 7
we ruled that an intact hymen does not necessarily prove absence of sexual intercourse.
Similarly, in People vs. Rafales, 3 8 we declared: HSIaAT

". . .. For rape to be committed, entrance of the male organ within the labia
or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. Rupture of the hymen or laceration
of the vagina are not essential. Entry to the least extent of the labia or the lips of
the female organ is sufficient, the victim remaining virgin does not negate rape."

As testi ed to by Lanie, "the tip" of appellant's penis was inserted 3 9 into her vagina,
4 0 as a result of which she felt pain. In other words, there was no full penetration, and this
explains why her hymen remained intact. Nonetheless, carnal knowledge was
consummated by the entry of "the tip" of appellant's private organ into the labia or
pudendum of Lanie's genitalia . 4 1 It is well-settled that full penetration is not required to
consummate carnal knowledge, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of
the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. 4 2
We now come to the second element of statutory rape, i.e., that the woman is under
12 years of age.
In People vs. Pruna, 4 3 we speci ed the guidelines in determining the su ciency of
evidence of the victim's age as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance,
thus:
"1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an
original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.
"2. In the absence of a certi cate of live birth, similar authentic
documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date
of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
"3. If the certi cate of live birth or authentic document is shown to
have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and
credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by a nity or
consanguinity who Is quali ed to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be su cient under the following
circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is
sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is
sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is
sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
"4. In the absence of a certi cate of live birth, authentic document, or
the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the
complainant's testimony will su ce provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused.
"5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the
offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence
regarding age shall not be taken against him.
"6. The trial court should always make a categorical nding as to age
of the victim." (Emphasis ours)

In the present case, the trial court made the following finding:
"From the evidence of both parties, the following facts appear to be
uncontroverted, to wit:
(a) That the complainant is an eleven year-old Grade V student and the
eldest daughter of the accused.

xxx xxx xxx" 4 4

Such nding as to Lanie's age is erroneous since it is based solely on Lanie's

testimony that she was 11 years old when appellant raped her on September 26, 1996. 4 5
In Pruna, cited earlier, we held that the best evidence to prove Lanie's age is the original or
certi ed true copy of her certi cate of live birth, or, in its absence, an authentic baptismal
certi cate or school records showing her age. However, the prosecution failed to present
any of such documents. Neither was it shown that they were lost, destroyed or unavailable
at the time of the trial. Also, the prosecution did not present Lanie's mother or relatives to
testify concerning her age. Lanie's testimony alone is not su cient to prove her actual age
considering that appellant did not expressly and clearly admit the same as required in
Pruna. And the fact that there was no objection from the defense regarding the victim's
age could not be taken against him since it is the prosecution that has the burden of
proving her age.
In view of the failure of the prosecution to prove Lanie's age as alleged in the
information, we hold that appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape. Nonetheless, he
should be convicted of simple rape under paragraph 1 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, quoted earlier, and sentenced accordingly to reclusion perpetua,
considering that he had carnal knowledge of Lanie through force or intimidation. She
testi ed that she was afraid of the appellant and succumbed to his bestial desires
because he boxed her on her thigh.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The damages awarded by the trial court in favor of the complainant must be
corrected. We have consistently ruled that upon a nding of the fact of rape, the award of
civil indemnity is mandatory. If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex delicto
should be P75,000.00. Where, as here, the death penalty is not decreed, the victim should
be entitled to P50,000.00 only. 4 6
In line with current jurisprudence, moral damages is xed at P50,000.00 without
need of pleading or proof of basis therefor. 4 7 In addition, exemplary damages of
P25,000.00 is awarded to deter fathers with aberrant sexual behavior. 4 8
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 5, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4,
Batangas City, in Criminal Case No. 8776, is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that appellant
RUBEN DALISAY Y HERNANDEZ is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape,
and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim
Ma. Lanie Dalisay, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. ICHDca

Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna and Tinga, JJ ., concur.
Callejo, Sr., J ., is on leave.

Footnotes
1. Footnote text not supplied in the original.

2. Rollo at 5.
3. Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), July 8, 1997 at 7.

4. Id. at 14.
5. Id. at 16.

6. Id. at 17.
7. Id. at 5–6, 16, 18.
8. Id. at 15–18.
9. Id. at 7.
10. Id. at 13.
11. TSN, July 29, 1997 at 4.

12. Id. at 5–6, 9.

13. RTC Records at 9.

14. Id. at 88–91.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 15. TSN, July 29, 1997 at 15.
16. Id., January 27, 1998 at 4.
17. Exhibit "I," RTC Records at 118.
18. TSN, October 20, 1997 at 15–16.

19. Id. at 17.

20. Rollo at 11.
21. "An Act To Impose The Death Penalty On Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending For That
Purpose The Revised Penal Code, As Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, And For Other
Purposes."

22. People vs. Gerry Libeta y Torre, G.R. No. 139231, April 12, 2002; People vs. Ronnie
Rullepa y Guinto, G.R. No. 131516, March 5, 2003, citing People vs. Bato, G.R. No.
134939, February 16, 2000, 325 SCRA 671.

23. Rollo at 14.

24. People vs. Agustin, G.R. Nos. 132524-25, September 24, 2001, 365 SCRA 667.
25. People vs. Melchor Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 134288-89, January 15, 2002.
26. TSN, July 8, 1997 at 5–8.
27. TSN, July 8, 1997 at 18.

28. Id. at 20.

29. Id. at 15.
30. People vs. Sagarino; G.R. Nos. 135356-58, September 4, 2001, 364 SCRA 438, citing
People vs. Razonable, G.R. Nos. 128085-87, April 12, 2000, 330 SCRA 562, 572; People
vs. Sevilla, 377 Phil. 933 (1999); People vs. Catoltol, Sr., 332 Phil. 883 (1996).
31. People vs. Sagarino, id., citing People vs. Francisco, 328 Phil. 64 (1996); People vs.
Bernabe, G.R. No. 141881, November 21, 2001, 370 SCRA 142, citing People vs.
Sacapaño, G.R. No. 130525, September 3, 1999, 313 SCRA 650; People vs. Buenviaje,
G.R. No. 130949, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 238.

32. People vs. Flores, G.R. Nos. 134488-89, January 25, 2002.
33. People vs. Salalima, G.R. Nos. 137969-71, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 193.
34. Records at 11.
35. People vs. Parcia, G.R. No. 141136, January 28, 2002; People vs. Regala, G.R. No.
140995, August 30, 2001, 364 SCRA 134; People vs. Bismonte, G.R. No. 139563,
November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 305.

36. Id.
37. Id.
38. G.R. No. 133477, January 21, 2000, 323 SCRA 13.

39. TSN, July 8, 1997 at 17.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 40. Id. at 6.
41. People vs. Gerry Libeta y Torre, supra, citing People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433,
March 30, 2000, 329 SCRA 270.

42. People vs. Bernabe, supra.

43. G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002.
44. Rollo at 12.
45. TSN, July 8, 1997 at 7.
46. People vs. Armando Tagud, Sr., G.R. No. 140733, January 30, 2002, citing People vs.
Poñado, 370 Phil. 558 (1999); People vs. Maglente, 366 Phil. 221 (1999); People vs.
Olarte, G.R. Nos. 129530-31, September 24, 2001, 365 SCRA 635; People vs. Elpedes,
G.R. Nos. 137106-07, January 31, 2001, 350 SCRA 716.

47. People vs. Salalima, supra; People vs. Agustin, supra.

48. People vs. Docena, 379 Phil. 903 (2000).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com